Dedicated to getting to the truth of things. A Christian since 1984. (Just a Christian, without pigeon-holing into a denomination.) I like people to be free to ask their questions about Christianity and the church. I like to approach faith questions with my brain switched on. A qualified classicist and historian.
Tweet: @colin_bluenose
And I don't look like James Garner. Enough about me already.

Saturday, 25 April 2015

The idea of a Christian Society - the genius of T.S. Eliot

I nearly lost the will to live trying to read the poetry of
T.S. Eliot when I was younger. Unknown to me back then, he was a member of the
Church of England and wrote the ‘Idea of a Christian Society’. This little book
is much more interesting to me. It’s a great book, and I’ll be blogging some
startling excerpts from it in the future. As a taster, here is a shortened version of an
article he wrote first, before the book., in 1937

It is an amazing bit of thinking. Some of it could have been
written today. Some of it is poignant – as the crimes of 1940s Germany are
almost within sight. But it’s prophetic of the evils of our day as much as his.
Eliot believed that the Church had an important part to play in influencing
society for the better. He doesn’t tell us how to run the world. But he teaches
Christians to think about how they can positively influence the way it is run.

Without further ado, here are the man’s words on the place
of the church in English society.

T.S Eliot “Church, Community and State” February 1937,
The Listener

... What is often assumed, and it is a principle that I wish
to oppose, is the principle of live-and-let-live...

I do not mean that the Church exists primarily for the
propagation of Christian morality: morality is a means and not an end. The
Church exists for the glory of God and the sanctification of souls: Christian
morality is part of the means by which these ends are to be attained... To accept two ways of life in the same
society, one for the Christian and one for the rest would be for the church to
abandon its task of evangelising the world. For the more alien the
non-Christian world becomes, the more difficult becomes its conversion.

The church is not merely for the elect... Nor does it allow
us to be Christian in some social relations and non-Christian in others... It
therefore must struggle for a condition of society which will give the maximum
of opportunity for us to lead wholly Christian lives, and the maximum of
opportunity for others to become Christians...

Now, how is the
Church to interfere in the World? I do not propose to take up the rest of my
time by denouncing Fascism and Communism. This task has been more ably
performed by others, and the conclusions may be taken for granted... [Written
in 1937, how poignant is that? CG]

We need not assume that our own form of constitutional
democracy is the only one suitable for a Christian people, or that it is in
itself a guarantee against an anti-Christian world. Instead of merely
condemning Fascism and Communism, therefore, we might do well to consider that
we also live in a mass-civilisation following many wrong ambitions and wrong desires,
and that if our society renounces completely its obedience to God, it will
become no better, and possibly worse, than some of those abroad which are
popularly execrated...

The influence of the Church can be exerted in several ways.
It may oppose, or it may support, particular actions at particular times. It is
acclaimed when it supports any cause that is already assured of a good deal of
secular support; it is attacked, quite naturally, when it opposes anything that
people think they want. Whether people say the Church ought to interfere, or
whether they say it ought to mind its own business, depends mostly on whether
they agree or disagree with its attitude upon the issue of the moment. A very
difficult problem arises whenever there is occasion for the Church to resist
any innovation – either in legislation or social practice – which is contrary
to Christian principles. To those who deny, or do not fully accept, Christian
doctrine, or who wish to interpret it according to their private lights, such resistance
often appears oppressive. To the unreasoning mind the Church can often be made
to appear to be the enemy of progress and enlightenment. The Church may not
always be strong enough to resist successfully: but I do not see how it can
ever accept as a permanent settlement one law for itself and another for the
world...

... one reason why the lot of the secular reformer or
revolutionist seems to me to be the easier is this: that for the most part he
conceives of the evils of the world as something external to himself. They are
thought of either as completely impersonal, so that there is nothing to alter
but the machinery; or if there is evil incarnate,
it is always incarnate in the other
people – a class, a race, the politicians, the bankers, the armament
makers, and so forth – never in oneself... for most people, to be able to
simplify issues so as to see only the definite external enemy, is extremely
exhilarating, and brings about the bright eye and the springy step that go so
well with the political uniform. This is an exhilaration that the Christian
must deny himself...

It is not enough simply to see the evil and injustice and
suffering of this world, and precipitate oneself into action. We must know,
what only theology can tell us, why these things are wrong. Otherwise, we may
right some wrongs at the cost of creating new ones...

... the Church cannot be, in any political sense, either
conservative, or liberal, or revolutionary. Conservatism is too often
conservation of the wrong things; liberalism a relaxation of discipline;
revolution a denial of the permanent things.

Perhaps the dominant vice of our time, from the point of
view of the Church, will be proved to be Avarice. Surely there is something
wrong in our attitude towards money. The acquisitive, rather than the creative
and spiritual instincts, are encouraged. The fact that money is always
forthcoming for the purpose of making more money, whilst it is so difficult to
obtain... for the needs of the most needy, is disturbing to those who are not
economists...

We cannot be satisfied to be Christians at our devotions and
merely secular reformers all the rest of the week, for there is one question
that we need to ask ourselves every day and about whatever business. The Church
has perpetually to answer this question: to what purpose were we born? What is
the end of Man?

2 comments:

Interesting article. I come from a tradition that believes it is not the church's job to change the world but only to be lights to it, so the idea of any kind of activism or political involvement is foreign to me. I do like his comment that the church should not be conservative, liberal, or revolutionary. In my view, it should be Christian, true, biblical, righteous, and holy. Those things are not conservative, liberal, or revolutionary in any political sense. They are God's principles and way of life. That the church has failed to do this in most cases has brought us to the state the world is in today.